Dazed, unconfused and Harry

I came across this about myself in a comments box across the pond at Winds of Change:

If he's a Marxist and a defender of human rights, I'd say he's confused...

Well, I'm sometimes dazed, actually, more than I'm confused, about the way certain others of Marxist persuasion, or merely formation - and indeed others, more generally, on the left - have found it possible to align themselves lately on matters relating to human rights. But confused? About this, I don't think so. I very much don't think so.

On a connected matter, for anyone who's not already seen them, I direct you to these observations of Harry's:

Those of us who self-identify as being part of the left are constantly battling with the seemingly trivial issue of political labels. We search for ways to differentiate ourselves from the Stoppers and the other nihilists. Because to merely tell someone you are left-wing these days is to invite a series of assumptions that cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. It is presumed that to be left is to oppose military-humanitarian interventions and expected that you subscribe to a crude anti-Americanism and take a Luddite position on globalisation.

It seems to me that there are two ways to deal with this. You can simply stop calling yourself 'left' and the personal dilemma is dealt with. Or you can try, through whatever means you have avaliable to you, to begin to be part of the process of redefining what the left is about.

I prefer the latter option and I hope Hitchens and others who share his perspective on Iraq and the broader picture will continue to state their position in terms of how it relates to real left values.

There are times, such as when thousands of 'leftists' take [to] the streets to save Saddam, that such an approach seems to be bordering on the impossible or the pointless. It certainly requires a large dose of patience and optimism.

But then, if you are on the left, haven't those qualities always been required?

Amen to all that.